Match Statistics - 2015 - Phase I

2015 APPIC Match Statistics - Phase I

Match Report from the APPIC Board of Directors

February 20, 2015

We are pleased to report that 3,239 applicants were successfully matched to internship positions in Phase I of the APPIC Match. Nearly half (49%) of all applicants who obtained a position matched to their first choice internship program, more than two-thirds (70%) received one of their top two choices, and about four-in-five (82%) received one of their top three choices.

A total of 689 applicants were not matched to an internship position in Phase I, while 319 applicants withdrew or did not submit a Rank Order List. A total of 445 positions remained unfilled.

Overall, the imbalance between applicants and internship positions showed significant improvement this year, due to a substantial increase in available positions along with a decrease in registered applicants. Compared to the 2014 Match, the number of registered applicants in 2015 decreased by 88 (-2%) to 4,247 applicants, while the number of internship positions increased by 183 (+5%) to 3,684 positions. Of the 183 additional positions, 144 (79%) were in APA- or CPA-accredited programs.

Despite the improvement in the overall imbalance, the number of applicants in 2015 still exceeded the number of positions by 563, and the number of applicants still exceeded the number of accredited positions by 1,515.

Here is a three-year comparison of the numbers of applicants and positions in 2015 as compared to 2012 (the 2012 Match was the point of the worst imbalance to date between applicants and positions):

2012 MATCH

2015 MATCH

3-YEAR CHANGE

Applicants:

Registered for the Match

4,435

4,247

-188 (-4%)

Withdrew or did not submit ranks

426

319

-107 (-25%)

Matched

2,968

3,239

+271 (+9%)

Unmatched

1,041

689

-352 (-34%)

Positions:

Offered in the Match

3,190

3,684

+494 (+15%)

Filled

2,968

3,239

+271 (+9%)

Unfilled

222

445

+223 (+100%)

Accredited (APA or CPA)

2,361

2,732

+371 (+16%)

Non-Accredited

829

952

+123 (+15%)

Number of registered applicants exceeded number of positions by:

1,245

563

-682 (-55%)

Number of registered applicants exceeded number of accredited positions by:

APPLICANTS

Applicants Participating in the Match(includes 34 individuals who participated in the Match as 17 "couples")

3,928

APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED IN PHASE I

Number of Applicants Who Submitted Applications in Phase I

4,154

Total Number of Applications Submitted in Phase I

65,429

Average Number of Applications Submitted by Applicants in Phase I (SD = 6.2)

15.8

Median Number of Applications Submitted in Phase I

16

Range of Applications Submitted in Phase I

1 - 60

NOTE: For comparison purposes, in 2013 applicants submitted an average of 16.3 applications (SD = 6.6) and a median of 16 applications, while in 2014 applicants submitted an average of 15.9 applications (SD = 6.2) and a median of 16 applications.

MATCH RESULTS IN PHASE I

Applicants Matched

3,239

82%

Participating Applicants Not Matched

689

18%

MATCH RESULTS BY RANK NUMBER ON APPLICANT'S LIST(PERCENTAGES MAY NOT TOTAL TO 100 DUE TO ROUNDING ERRORS)

Rank

Number of Applicants

1

1,590

49%

2

686

21%

3

387

12%

4

225

7%

5

133

4%

6

76

2%

7

51

2%

8

31

1%

9

17

1%

10 or higher

43

1%

Total

3,239

100%

RANKINGS IN PHASE I

Average Number of Rankings Submitted Per Applicant:

Matched Applicants

8.2

Unmatched Applicants

4.0

Overall

7.4

Each Position Was Ranked by an Average of 7.9 Applicants.

INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS

PARTICIPATION IN PHASE I

Training Sites Participating in the Match

774

Programs Participating in the Match

1,417

Positions Offered in the Match

3,684

NOTE: A "training site" can offer more than one "program" in the Match. Each "program" was identified in the Match by a separate 6-digit code number.

APPLICATIONS RECEIVED IN PHASE I

Sites Receiving Applications in Phase I

771

Total Number of Applications Received in Phase I

65,429

Average Number Received Per Site (SD = 65.2)

84.9

Median Number Received Per Site

69

Range of Applications Received Per Site

1 - 388

NOTE: For comparison purposes, in 2013 sites received an average of 97.9 applications (SD = 71.2) and a median of 86 applications, while in 2014 sites received an average of 89.8 applications (SD = 65.1) and a median of 80 applications.

MATCH RESULTS IN PHASE I

Positions:

Filled in the Match

3,239

88%

Remaining Unfilled

445

12%

Programs:

Filled in the Match

1,156

82%

With Unfilled Positions

261

18%

NOTE: 33 programs at 31 sites submitted fewer ranks than the number of positions available. As a result, no ranks were submitted for 60 positions, which remained unfilled.

APA- OR CPA- ACCREDITED POSITIONS

Filled in the Match

2,600

95%

Remaining Unfilled

132

5%

Total

2,732

NON-ACCREDITED POSITIONS

Filled in the Match

639

67%

Remaining Unfilled

313

33%

Total

952

Non-accredited positions represented 25.8% of all positions but 70.3% of unfilled positions.

RANKINGS IN PHASE I

Average Number of Applicants Ranked Per Position Offered for Each Program:

Programs Filling All Positions

8.4

Programs With Unfilled Positions

3.5

All Programs

7.4

Each Registered Applicant Was Ranked by an Average of 5.6 Different Programs.

DOCTORAL PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AND RESULTS

SUMMARY OF PARTICIPATING DOCTORAL PROGRAMS

PROGRAM TYPE

DEGREE SOUGHT

NUMBER OF DOCTORAL PROGRAMS

NUMBER OF APPLICANTS

Accredited

Non-Accred.

Totals

Accredited

Non-Accred.

Totals

Clinical

Ph.D.

189

14

203

1,484

81

1,565

Psy.D.

63

23

86

1,664

192

1,856

Ed.D.

0

0

0

0

0

0

TOTALS

252

37

289

3,148

273

3,421

Counseling

Ph.D.

67

5

72

396

19

415

Psy.D.

5

4

9

42

33

75

Ed.D.

0

2

2

0

4

4

TOTALS

72

11

83

438

56

494

School

Ph.D.

47

11

58

171

20

191

Psy.D.

4

6

10

6

17

23

Ed.D.

0

1

1

0

5

5

TOTALS

51

18

69

177

42

219

Combined

Ph.D.

8

1

9

60

1

61

Psy.D.

3

2

5

41

11

52

Ed.D.

0

0

0

0

0

0

TOTALS

11

3

14

101

12

113

ALL PROGRAMS

Ph.D.

311

31

342

2,111

121

2,232

Psy.D.

75

35

110

1,753

253

2,006

Ed.D.

0

3

3

0

9

9

TOTALS

386

69

455

3,864

383

4,247

APPLICANT RESULTS BY DOCTORAL PROGRAM TYPE AND DEGREE

PROGRAM TYPE

DEGREE SOUGHT

MATCHED

UNMATCHED

WITHDREW OR NO RANKINGS SUBMITTED

TOTAL

Clinical

Ph.D. / Ed.D.

1,254

80.1%

227

14.5%

84

5.4%

1,565

Psy.D.

1,332

71.8%

350

18.9%

174

9.4%

1,856

TOTALS

2,586

75.6%

577

16.9%

258

7.5%

3,421

Counseling

Ph.D. / Ed.D.

353

84.2%

49

11.7%

17

4.1%

419

Psy.D.

53

70.7%

13

17.3%

9

12.0%

75

TOTALS

406

82.2%

62

12.6%

26

5.3%

494

School

Ph.D. / Ed.D.

145

74.0%

30

15.3%

21

10.7%

196

Psy.D.

8

34.8%

6

26.1%

9

39.1%

23

TOTALS

153

69.9%

36

16.4%

30

13.7%

219

Combined

Ph.D. / Ed.D.

53

86.9%

5

8.2%

3

4.9%

61

Psy.D.

41

78.8%

9

17.3%

2

3.8%

52

TOTALS

94

83.2%

14

12.4%

5

4.4%

113

ALL PROGRAMS

Ph.D. / Ed.D.

1,805

80.5%

311

13.9%

125

5.6%

2,241

Psy.D.

1,434

71.5%

378

18.8%

194

9.7%

2,006

TOTALS

3,239

76.3%

689

16.2%

319

7.5%

4,247

NOTE: Students seeking Ed.D. degrees were included in the Ph.D. category in order to prevent individuals from being identified.

APPLICANT RESULTS BY DOCTORAL PROGRAM ACCREDITATION STATUS AND PROGRAM TYPE

ACCREDITATION STATUS OF DOC. PROG.

PROGRAM TYPE

MATCHED

UNMATCHED

WITHDREW OR NO RANKINGS SUBMITTED

TOTAL

Accredited

Clinical

2,455

78.0%

513

16.3%

180

5.7%

3,148

Counseling

378

86.3%

45

10.3%

15

3.4%

438

School

134

75.7%

28

15.8%

15

8.5%

177

Combined

88

87.1%

9

8.9%

4

4.0%

101

TOTALS

3,055

79.1%

595

15.4%

214

5.5%

3,864

Non-Accredited

Clinical

131

48.0%

64

23.4%

78

28.6%

273

Counseling

28

50.0%

17

30.4%

11

19.6%

56

School

19

45.2%

8

19.0%

15

35.7%

42

Combined

6

50.0%

5

41.7%

1

8.3%

12

TOTALS

184

48.0%

94

24.5%

105

27.4%

383

ALL PROGRAMS

Clinical

2,586

75.6%

577

16.9%

258

7.5%

3,421

Counseling

406

82.2%

62

12.6%

26

5.3%

494

School

153

69.9%

36

16.4%

30

13.7%

219

Combined

94

83.2%

14

12.4%

5

4.4%

113

TOTALS

3,239

76.3%

689

16.2%

319

7.5%

4,247

MATCHED APPLICANTS BY ACCREDITATION STATUS OF INTERNSHIP AND DOCTORAL PROGRAMS

DOCTORAL PROGRAM ACCREDITATION STATUS

MATCHED TO ACCREDITED INTERNSHIP

MATCHED TO NON-ACCREDITED INTERNSHIP

TOTAL

Accredited

2,533

82.9%

522

17.1%

3,055

Non-Accredited

67

36.4%

117

63.6%

184

ALL PROGRAMS

2,600

80.3%

639

19.7%

3,239

MATCHED APPLICANTS BY ACCREDITATION STATUS OF INTERNSHIP PROGRAMAND DOCTORAL PROGRAM TYPE AND DEGREE

PROGRAM TYPE

DEGREE SOUGHT

MATCHED TO ACCREDITED INTERNSHIP

MATCHED TO NON-ACCREDITED INTERNSHIP

TOTAL

Clinical

Ph.D. / Ed.D.

1,179

94.0%

75

6.0%

1,254

Psy.D.

865

64.9%

467

35.1%

1,332

TOTALS

2,044

79.0%

542

21.0%

2,586

Counseling

Ph.D. / Ed.D.

331

93.8%

22

6.2%

353

Psy.D.

19

35.8%

34

64.2%

53

TOTALS

350

86.2%

56

13.8%

406

School

Ph.D. / Ed.D.

123

84.8%

22

15.2%

145

Psy.D.

3

37.5%

5

62.5%

8

TOTALS

126

82.4%

27

17.6%

153

Combined

Ph.D. / Ed.D.

51

96.2%

2

3.8%

53

Psy.D.

29

70.7%

12

29.3%

41

TOTALS

80

85.1%

14

14.9%

94

ALL PROGRAMS

Ph.D. / Ed.D.

1,684

93.3%

121

6.7%

1,805

Psy.D.

916

63.9%

518

36.1%

1,434

TOTALS

2,600

80.3%

639

19.7%

3,239

NOTE: Students seeking Ed.D. degrees were included in the Ph.D. category in order to prevent individuals from being identified.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM RANKINGS

The following report contains additional statistics on how successful programs were, on average, in matching with applicants during Phase I of the APPIC Match.

There are several important issues that must be considered in attempting to analyze program success based on the rank numbers of matched applicants.

DEFINITIONAL PROBLEMS: Because each applicant submitted a single Rank Order List in order to match to a single position, it is easy to identify his or her "first choice," "second choice," etc. However, for an internship program, determining first or second choice applicants is a far more difficult and complex task. First, many programs attempt to fill several positions; if a program has three positions to fill, an applicant ranked third by that program can in effect be considered a "first choice" for purposes of the Match. Furthermore, a significant number of sites submitted multiple Rank Order Lists for a single program, sometimes ranking the same applicant on different Lists with different rank numbers. Also, the reversion of unfilled positions between lists adds a further complication to this analysis.

We worked closely with National Matching Services in an attempt to resolve these difficulties and to develop a reasonable method of presenting this data.

STANDARDIZED RANKINGS: For the purposes of this analysis, we converted each site's rankings to a "standardized rank." This is best explained by example: if the number of positions to be filled from a Rank Order List was three, then the first three applicants on this List were considered to be "first choice" applicants and given a standardized rank of 1. The next three applicants on that List were defined as "second choice" applicants and given a standardized rank of 2. And so on.

PHASE I MATCH RESULTS BYSTANDARDIZED RANK NUMBER ON INTERNSHIP PROGRAM LIST

(Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding errors)

Standardized Rank

Number of Applicants Matched

1

1,123

35%

2

837

26%

3

498

15%

4

346

11%

5

198

6%

6

95

3%

7

59

2%

8

31

1%

9

12

0%

10 or higher

40

1%

Total

3,239

100%

To interpret this chart: Of all positions that were filled in Phase I of the Match, 35% were filled with "first choice" applicants (as defined above), 26% with "second choice" applicants, and so on.

Furthermore, 61% were filled with "first" or "second" choice applicants, while 76% were filled with "third choice" applicants or better.

Of course, comparing these numbers to applicants' Match statistics should be done with extreme caution, given the significantly different ways in how "first choice", "second choice", etc. were defined in each analysis.